Obama administers a stern scolding to lefty critics

By
Greg Sargent

I noted this morning that Obama's strategy going forward will be to position himself as Washington's lone resident adult in a town full of squabbling children on right and left, and at his presser just now, Obama offered a surprisingly stern, and even angry, rebuke to his liberal critics that will generate a fair amount of discussion.

The whole thing is worth quoting at length. Asked by a reporter if the Bush tax cuts deal showed that he has no core principles that he's willing to stand firm on, Obama said:

This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years. But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for maybe 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness, of compromise.

If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: We will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.

And in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, [I'm] not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people...

This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding. If we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union.

Obama was as visibly frustrated and angry as he's perhaps ever been in public, and some folks are pointing out on Twitter that he seems more angry with the left than he is with Republicans. In fairness to Obama, though, he directed harsher rhetoric at Republicans, implicitly comparing them to hostage takers at one point, and his basic message was that he needs fellow Dems to understand the nature of the opposition and allow him the space to act accordingly.

That was by far Obama's sternest publicly rebuke yet of his liberal critics, and his frustration with them -- which seems to have built up over the past two years -- was palpable. If Obama is going to play the role of adult-in-chief going forward, his tormentors on the left clearly will not be spared the rod.

Obama says, "This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care."

Well, he's right about that. Which is why this liberal won't be knocking on a single door, making a single call or probably even voting for him in 2012--Americans cannot afford to allow ourselves to be led by such a terrible, horrible negotiator as this president has proven to be. Buh-bye, chief.

He's not wrong to compare them to hostage takers--I mean, what else do you call people who literally refuse to pass any legislation until we give tax cuts to the top 2% of earners, and who say they will give tax cuts to NO ONE unless we also give them to the top 2%?

It's harsh rhetoric, but this is literally "give me what I want for my 2% or I will harm the other 98%." I don't know what else you call it.

Not to mention, I don't want to hear another word from any Republican (electeds or voters) about the deficit, ever. The last week should make it perfectly clear that they are the party of Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney.

One fact Obama misses here, and that your otherwise on point analysis should note, is that a central critique of fellow Dems and other supporters is that Obama is misunderstanding the nature of the opposition.

He didn't "implicitly" call the GOP hostage takers...he did it directly. He flat out said that the GOP took the American people hostage, and he had to make this deal because they were willing to harm America if it came to that. My wording is different, but only slightly, and it certainly wasn't just "implied".

I agree that the he seemed more frustrated with the left than that right...which I think is probably fair. Everyone knows the GOP is full of idealogically rigid "shoot the hostage" maniacs. But the left continues to act like if they just let the GOP shoot the hostage, they won't have anymore leverage. True, maybe, but then you have a dead hostage.

I don't like the deal - particularly the lack of help for the teir 5 (99 weeks+) folks - but would be willing to accept it if it also meant movement on other liberal priorities during the lame duck session.

Yeah, it reminds me of the health care debate too. He gave up on an issue that is fundamental to base Dems and actually deficit reducing, then made speeches about how important it was for a while, then announced that he had folded anyway. Oh, and it's all the fault of those pesky liberals that the whole country isn't overjoyed.

This is just the Shock Doctrine in action. He wants to cut Social Security and he'll let the GOP make him do it to make up for the deficit he just exploded, because pay cuts for federal workers won't be enough.

And the estate tax? What was that for?

It's not just liberals who are pissed about extending the Bush tax cuts.

President Obama can display anger all he wants to. It means nothing. He caved.
No one fears him anymore, and that is a bad position for any President to have put himself in.

I am tuning him out, and will not work to reelect him. I am like the African American woman who told him that she was exhausted from having to constantly defend him.

The reason why we have had to exhaust ourselves doing so, is because he never goes on offense.

He appears to have taken the wrong lesson from the recent election results, and has now become just a rubber stamp for what ever Mitch McConnell wants done.

I supported Barack Obama for President, and for the past two years, even though I did not want him to become mired down in Afghanistan. He is now getting rolled by his own Military on the drawdown dates for that hopeless quagmire. He also lost his nerve on shutting down Gitmo.
He has become the Incredible Shrinking President. Call him President Shellac Shocked Obama.

Also...I believe that most don't understand the nature of Pres. Obama's frustration with the left.

I really think he's not so much pissed at them for holding an idealic set of principals. He's pissed that they expect those things to somehow become law, when Washington simply doesn't work like that. He may agree that a Public Option is the best way to go, but the left screaming "Don't Cave" at him won't help him in ANY WAY get it signed into law.

The left could be helping push their policy positions, and making the arguement about how/why they are better than what conservatives offer. If they did that, Pres. Obama's job in these negotiations would be much easier because he'd have more leverage and support. He could get more of what he wanted (and what the left wanted), and thus everybody wins.

But instead they direct their ire at him, and him alone. He's definately deserving of some...but the amout of flak he's taken because Congressional Dems didn't deal with this before the election cannot be understated. So it's the reverse cycle. He gets no support, Congressional Dems never show up, and he's left to deal from a position of weakness against a unified obstructionist GOP. Then when the deal sucks (it does), everyone blames him, and him alone.

That's why he's frustated. This was supposed to be a team sport, but no one else showed up to play. Now they all blame him for the loss.

@Kevin_Willis"It the Democrats really wanted to raise taxes on the $250k + set, couldn't they just use reconciliation? Republicans did it to pass tax cuts, couldn't they be used to uncut taxes as well?

Or do the Democrats just not want to actually try to tax the upper 2% as much as they say they do? Considering they're part of that group, maybe?"

Basically the rules the Democrats put into place on reconciliation prevent it from being used to pass a bill that would increase the deficit over current law. Extending the tax cuts for just those couples under $250k per year(singles under $200k) will increase the deficit over current law, which is that all the Bush tax cuts expire on 12/31/2010.

They can't do that because in order to use reconciliation, a provision has to be made in that fiscal year's budget for it to be used on a specific topic (IIRC, the Dems got in a fight with themselves working out Obama's first budget when they wanted to allow for reconciliation to potentially be used for both HCR and Climate change legislation. Sen Conrad balked, and the latter wasn't included, while the former had some additional criteria added)

That said, if it had been arranged in advance, lifting a tax cut would actually be appropriate for reconciliation, whereas the Bush tax cuts as originally enacted violated one of the bottom-line rules for reconciliation: it must reduce the deficit.

No, the reason you think, "Liberal policies are never enacted," is because nothing will ever be good enough for people like you and Hamsher. Ya'all act just like my ex-wife. I could give her a 20 pound brick of pure gold and she would complain about how she wanted a 30 pound brick of gold!

This isn't new. Those on the far left always, always attack their own. No matter what Obama does it will never be good enough for you; so why should he care what you say?

wbgonne said "And that's why Liberal policies are never enacted."
WOW - you really don't know anything. I think most people would consider the Bill of Rights, the 40-hr workweek, the minimum wage, the abolition of slavery, the 14,15,and 16th amendments, the protection of voting rights & women's rights to vote, the abolition of poll taxes, anti-trust legislation and enforcement, public education, integration of the military, schools, workplaces, commercial establishments, the Civil Rights act, the social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc.), public highways, the national park system, etc, etc, etc. as pretty significant policies that were enacted. Yep, I can list a whole lot of liberal accomplishments but I'm having a really hard time thinking of any conservative accomplishments except for the invasion of Iraq, the Watergate fiasco, the McCarthy witch hunts, & the Iran/Contra affair that turned our govt into cocaine dealing illegal arms traders. Sheesh.

Today Obama has expressed contempt for the base that elected elevated him over The Clintons. If we wanted the Clintons, we would have elected The Clintons.

This has nothing to do with pure intentions, it has to do with what is possible versus what he is settling for, to say nothing of his GD war, his supply side monetary policies, his failure to protect homeowners from their toxic liabilities whilst protecting the banks from theirs...

But go ahead Barak, you tacked to the right, you've pulled the Clinton.

To try to get re-elected you'll throw over the people who got you elected to try to get moderates (the center right). If they run Palin against you, that will work, but if they run Romney against you, it won't. Republicans get that. It isn't that the left won't vote for you if they actually bother to vote, but the enthusiasm is...gone.

Look. People have been wanting Obama to get angry. He did. And it doesn't surprise me that his anger was directed against people who can't seem to distinguish between him and George W. Bush. It's a demoralizing false equivalency. No wonder he's pissed. I think people should read the entire comment from the end of his press conference and not just the part excerpted here. There's no question that his principles are aligned with the liberal side of the ledger but that he still knows it's his job to achieve what's possible when there's a whole country out there.

First, it doesn't matter how lilylivered Obama is, when it comes to him or (pick one) Palin, Romney, Huckabee, palenty, etc. Dems that vote regularly will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I hope that dems don't primary Obama and weaken him more than he already is.

Second, I wanted to hear more repub bashing. Why couldn't he say "Let's be clear, we democrats are for allowing tax cuts on the rich to expire. The republicans would not agree to that. I am having to support a bad economic policy in order to get things that were uncontroversial in previous congresses like unemployment insurance extensions, international treaties previously enjoying bipartisan support, and more middle class tax cuts.

It should also be clear that repubs were willing to raise taxes on all americans, to try and bargain on behalf of the wealthy few. This is not an ideal bargain. I don't like it, but allowing tax hikes on the middle class is too destructive to allow to happen."

Of course, the easy way to go is to let the cuts expire and then propose a middle class only tax cut (like a payroll tax cut, included in this package) during this session.

The Liberals in the House and Senate will eventually cave in, because this is a tactic where they have expertise. In the meantime, even Harry Reid says the tax bill as is, still needs more work, and there seems to be a small , but growing revolt in the House and in the Senate Bernie Sanders is talking about a filibuster. Go Bernie Go!

At the end of 2008, The Republicans had been routed. They had lost control of the White House, The Senate, and House. Many pundits were saying that The Republican Party had been reduced to a regional rump party.

Just two years later. They have taken charge of Washington, and President Obama has surrendered to them. This all happened on his watch, so he better stop pointing the finger at others, and go look in the mirror.

We sure are living in strange times. The Republicans captured the senate seats previously held by Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama; had landslide national victories in Congress, and the State Houses. Yet; Michael Steele is in danger of losing his job, while not a single complaint is being heard about those who President Obama picked to run the DNC.

Michael Steele is in danger of losing his position, even though his party routed the Democrats; but no one has said one word about cleaning house at the DNC.

How come President Obama has not shown some leadership, and replaced Tim Kaine, etc?

Look. People have been wanting Obama to get angry. He did. And it doesn't surprise me that his anger was directed against people who can't seem to distinguish between him and George W. Bush. It's a demoralizing false equivalency. No wonder he's pissed. I think people should read the entire comment from the end of his press conference and not just the part excerpted here. There's no question that his principles are aligned with the liberal side of the ledger but that he still knows it's his job to achieve what's possible when there's a whole country out there."

"There's no question that his principles are aligned with the liberal side of the ledger but that he still knows it's his job to achieve what's possible when there's a whole country out there."

It would have been quite "possible" to extend the middle class (only) rates permanently if Obama and the Dems had made it a priority and done it early in his term. Obama is trying to play a fast one on y'all and claim pragmatism while bashing the far left.

It's not the far left's fault that Obama and his crew are poor legislative strategists.

I am proud of Obama's position on this. Working Republicans will get their tax cuts and the welfare Democrats will get their unemployment extended and tax credits for not being willing to work for a living. It is the ideal compromise!

some wing nut named thebump is saying the same thing the hard core leftist (yo) said...Obama tacked right to get re-elected and that it won't work. This is another example of the bipartisan agreement Obama craves.

The left had his back, the right will settle for nothing less than his destruction. Can he hide in the middle?
Will moderates go to him instead of Romney? That is his gambit. That is why I have been saying all along, the only thing that can save him is a big rebound in retail sales, then the service economy will hire again...hence, all the free money.

Everyone in the country told you that Obama was inexperience and unqualified - and you liberals still voted for him.

So, NOW you are upset that Obama is incompetent???

What about the rest of the country - the liberals have forced the nation to endure 2 more years of incompetent government - and only now the liberals are realizing this guy Obama doesn't know what he is doing?

Liberals must desert the Democratic Party. No money, No votes. No support. Until that happens the Liberals will be the all-purpose punching bag for everyone. If the Democrats hope to salvage their party they will mount a serious primary challenge to Obama from the Left. No, I don't expect it to happen. Yes, the Democratic Party is collapsing.

Let's face it. He has zero confidence the economy will be materially better in two years. If he allows the tax cuts on the rich to expire, and the economy still is in the dumps, the Republicans will have a powerful club to beat him with.

At the end of the day, nobody doubts that tax cuts are stimulative. People will differ about the multiplier effects of different tax policies, but no one will be able to accuse Obama of hurting the economy by cutting taxes.

Yes, the deficit is important, but a bit of recovery will go a long way in fixing the fiscal problems we have. And with the 10 year yielding under 3.2%, the global markets are far from revolting.

I also think that the politics of this will be entirely different with an unemployment rate at 7%.

However, this debate is identical to the health care debate in that the Dems - with control of Congress and the White House - have again ceded their position without so much as a fight.

~~~~

Actually it is identical to health care in that some on the left don't understand the fillibuster. They think that Obama can wave his magical wand and control Congress.

Here is another quote from Obama's presser today:

"On the Republican side, this is their holy grail. These tax cuts for the wealthy. This seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I have said that I would've liked to see a vote before the election. I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election."

It seems that Obama can do something most of the far lefties can NOT do: count to sixty!

During the campaign Obama declared, on dozens and dozens of occasions, that we, "Can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." He was right then and he is right now.

Posted by: RainForestRising "What about the rest of the country - the liberals have forced the nation to endure 2 more years of incompetent government - and only now the liberals are realizing this guy Obama doesn't know what he is doing?"

I held my Republican friends' feet to the fire for the GOP not rising up against G. W. Bush's incompetence. Now that we see Obama is equally unqualified, trust me, I won't be quiet about it. If the GOP truly has come to recognize that management skills matter, I suggest you prove it by appointing someone in 2012 who has more than a 1/2-term as a small state governor as your candidate.

When? The left has been throwing tomatoes from the sidelines since the day after the inauguration.

If the left was serious about governing, they would be organizing in the field...you know...knocking on doors, etc. Where were their public counter-demonstrations during the HCR fight? Why didn't they meet the teabaggers stop by stop?

That said, I don't disagree with the progressive platform, just with the tactics being used to secure it. There is no ground organization on the left. There is no movement to speak of. There are plenty of folks sitting at their keyboards pounding on the POTUS, but where are the activists that are out educating the public?

wbgonne - You do whatever you wish. Go start your own party. You could call it the Compulsive Whiner Pary, or the I'm A Spoiled Child and Everyone has to do What I Say Party, or the I Can't Count to Sixty Party.

Have a blast getting nothing done. And when you aren't preoccupied by changing your own diapers I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate how ideologically pure you are. I'm sure you'll be able to wag your finger at everyone on the internets and tell them how it would have all been different if only everyone would have done what YOU wanted.

"Second, I wanted to hear more repub bashing. Why couldn't he say "Let's be clear, we democrats are for allowing tax cuts on the rich to expire. The republicans would not agree to that. I am having to support a bad economic policy in order to get things that were uncontroversial in previous congresses like unemployment insurance extensions, international treaties previously enjoying bipartisan support, and more middle class tax cuts."

Sadly, instead of saying this, wbgonne and Liam are bashing Obama and Obama is bashing them.

The fact that Republicans refused to vote for a middle class tax cut ( by their own logic a vote to raise taxes) should be shouted from the mountain top. That they refused to address START and in doing so endangered our national security unless the top 2% got their cuts too should also be shouted from the mountain top. That Republicans insisted on adding more to our deficit should be constantly pointed out.

Instead we have liberals complaining about a compromise that puts more money in the pockets of millions of unemployed Americans. Maybe wbgonne is right and the democratic party is dead, but he/she is as much at fault as Obama.

I know you are embarrassed by being banned as STRF, etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++
IN addition, there is a RACIAL component here. Most everyone above 250K is WHITE - MOST OF THE BLACKS ARE BELOW 250K

THE WHOLE 250K NUMBER IS RACIST

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
+++++++++++++++++++

Doesn't that make the bush tax cuts racist since they mostly benefited rich, almost entirely white people more than poor people who don't pay (much or any) income or especially capital gains tax (where the most minorities find themselves)? Just askin...

Oh, please. If you want to delude yourself that's your business but don't expect anyone who isn't a TrueBlue Democrat to follow suit. Obama's secret strategy of going after Independents? What a joke. And an old and dates joke at that. Clinton already did the Triangulation Thing in the 90s. And here's a news flash: It ain't the 90s no more and Liberals won't stand for being treated like the crazy aunt in the attic, especially not when Liberal ideas are superior both politically and policy-wise.

Still waiting for your sign-on to purge Liberals and Leftists from the Democratic Party. I'm already working on it.

"First Read makes a great point -- in pure dollar terms, the Republicans got way less out of the tax deal than Democrats did:

"Despite being billed as a great debate over the Bush tax cuts, the struggle between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans appears to have ended with an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts representing only about 37 percent of the total cost of the agreement Obama announced Monday night.

"And keep in mind, most of that 37% is for families making less than $250,000 a year. In pure numeric terms, the vast majority of the money in this deal is for things the White House (and most Democrats) actually want.

"How did Democrats get a deal like that? Ezra Klein's source confirms what I speculated without any information -- Republicans love them some rich folk. They're willing to bargain away a lot to help the very rich:

"For one thing, the things [Republicans] wanted were things they really, really wanted. A number of sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have fingered the estate tax as the major player in the size of the deal. "Republicans were extremely eager to get benefits for the top tenth of a percent of Americans," says one senior administration official.

"The only thing that can overwhelm the GOP's partisanship is its overwhelming desire to increase the incomes of the top 1%."

I think it's really important to notice the second point Bernie makes: that it's part of the Republican strategy for 2012 to "get the Dem base demoralized, fighting or in apathy." I don't doubt that many people of strong principles on the left would have reached the same conclusions with or without any Republican strategy at work. But I do sometimes wonder if the Republicans are seeding the debate with well and widely placed talking points that are bound to rile a lot of people on the left. And I'm not even sure about some of the messengers on the left. I haven't forgotten that Jane Hamsher's "principles" led her to align herself with Grover Norquist or that Arianna Huffington was anchored firmly on the right before she saw there was more room for influence on the left. I'm not saying that we've got moles. But, hmmm . . .

And now I'm going to go think about Elizabeth Edwards and the people with her diagnosis who might be able to get care they wouldn't have received without HCR. They just don't give you radiation or chemo in the ER.

Two years ago, working Americans had high hopes that we would ultimately emerge from the deep, punishing financial debacle with a sharp focus on a fundamentally stronger, fairer and more balanced economy. Today, that vision has dimmed.

The tax cut deal rewards Republican obstructionism by giving the wealthy the tax breaks they demanded. It throws away precious resources needed for investments in jobs and our economy on upper income tax cuts that will do very little to propel economic growth—setting up excuses for the deficit hypocrites to argue for even more cuts to programs serving working families. It lards the tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an indefensible cut in the estate tax – giving yet another bonus to the super-rich. Taken together, this package locks in the growing income inequality that has plagued our country for at least another two years – and quite possibly much longer.

It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families. Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.

The gains for the middle class and jobless workers in the deal come at too high a price.

The issue we face today is not the lack of power or opportunity. The question we have to answer is this: How do we use our power to escape caving in to Wall Street and moneyed interests? And how do we create the millions of jobs we need now and move toward a future of broadly shared prosperity?"

@rainforest sockpuppet:
They never told anyone because the democrats practiced a careful deception about the Bush tax cuts from day one - that the Middle Class got most of the money
====
As a GROUP, because there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE middle class people than <$1000K earners, there was more money going to the middle class than to the "rich", but AS INDIVIDUALS, the <1000k folks got ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE more money than INDIVIDUAL middle class people.

That is like saying that individual chinese and americans are about as well off if the two countries have about the same GDP.

If Obama is doing so great why do the Democrats keep getting clobbered by a nutbag version of the GOP? I guess a lot of Americans are as stupid as I am and just don't see Obama's brilliance. Good luck in 2012. You're gonna need it.

Facts? How did the things work in November? The Republicans are winning the battle he is not fighting. Do you think tax cuts for the rich will help his cause, or running the war in Afghanistan until victory is declared? He was elected because people thought he would deliver a different approach to being a Democrat than The Clintons. Since he isn't different, he'll get smoked in 2012 (unless the Republicans run Palin again).

This isn't about ideological purity or some socialist agenda or any of that. This is about being destroyed by Republicans while he hopes to impress moderates with his moderation.

The meme-du-jour for those suffering from Obamic Stockholm Syndrome is that we should blame the Democratic Congress not the White House. Putting aside for one moment the political idiocy of that tactic, here's why it is BS. There is only one president. Obama simply does not undersatand the nature of the job. He shouldn't run again. He sucks at being president and he looks like he hates it besides.

But I'm not trying to antagonize you. I genuinely hope that this compromise is going to look better to you over time--that there will be good results--and that you'll be ready to support Obama again. (And even if he doesn't get marijuana legalized.)

I am not fighting, since early 2009 I have been patiently explicating the only way Obama could lose in 2012. Still (since he never listens to me), he made a fundamental strategic error pandering to the center right. He is not Bill Clinton, he was not elected to become Bill Clinton.

Don't waste your time hoping I'll support him. Obama is finished as far as I'm concerned. He is a horrid president at a time when we can least afford it as a nation. I really thought the United States got really lucky when Obama emerged as if from nowhere. But I was wrong and this country is in deep trouble,

What would it look like if you had a President who was engaged primarily in the task of trying to actually govern a complex modern country so as to get as much as he could for citizens while in the face of totally cynical and intransigent opposition (of the rather insane and greedy sort)?

You do not have an administration which is run for political gain out of a political operation such as Rove managed.

WWWHHHAAAAaaaa... starting to sound like the whiny nags over at cluster-fox...

Obama, it's now time for you to sit down and shut up for a while.. Recently, everything you have touched as turned to rust the same day.

Cave on a fundamental platform that progressives believed, in their hearts, you would support - no dice. NOW, it comes to light, you and your team also caved on trying to make any kind of peace deal in the middle-east.

THAT'S IT!!!

Coast a while... nobody wants to talk to you right now..they think you're a dumba**..

But not a word for Republicans, nothing to say about the uh "people" who flash signs of him with a bone in his nose or who call him a Communist, nothing to say about his former "colleagues" in the Senate whose only goal and priority is to obstruct him from doing his job while they make not even a pretense of doing theirs.

Obama creates a "deficit commission" and it simply stenographs the Republican talking points of the last thirty years, even unto cutting taxes on the wealthy again, that same old Grover Norquist lie about taxation, trickle-down, and private sector.

Sorry Mr. President but if we wanted a free-market zombie and warmonger we would have voted for Mr. Magoo and the Tundra Tramp. No longer crying for Obama to grow a spine and a pair, he lacks the genes.

wbg, The Democratic Congress could have voted before the elections. Why didn't they?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 7, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Several reasons. First, b/c the House doesn't trust Obama and the Senate may not now either. Second, because a lot of so-called Democrats are actually Moderate Republicans who think the GOP is basically correct on everything. Third, because Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional and has been for years.

When you are reduced to pleading the weakness of an American president you are lost politically. Americans HATE weak presidents. SImple as that. And it has become ever more that way as the culture has rotted. Now that Americans are beginning to realize that the United States is in decline they are very angry and the LAST thing they want is a roundheel sphinx for a president. To not recognize that reality is gross political malpractice which, like many, I had formerly ascribed to Obama's advisors. But since the curtain has been pulled away we see that it is Obama himself who is the problem.

I understand partisanship and I know that many diehard Democrats will defend Obama to the bitter end (ha). But the sad truth is that Obama has completely squandered a magnificent opportunity for the Democrats but, far more importantly, for the nation.

By getting angry at the progressives, the President has cut himself free from the dead weight of trying to please those who cannot be pleased. Good for him!

Democrats who are doing their usual knee-jerk over the top reaction had better calm themselves and think about the position they are now in.

First, the negotiations on this deal WERE NOT just the President and the two House and Senate Republicans. There were two Democrats at the table, someone from the House (Chris Van Hollen) and someone from the Senate (it might have been Max Baucus, but you can google it.) Further it was Javob Lew, the new Budget Director and Treas. Sec'y Tim Geithner at the table.

Anyone on either side who claims they were not represented is lying.

Unemployment benefits were not a done deal -- as I just saw Sherrod Brown suggesting on Rachel Maddow. There have already been two votes to extend them and both failed. The Republicans were demanding they be "paid for" out of stimulus money.

Dec. 31 is fast approaching. 2 million people will lose their benefits then, plus another 2 at least in January.

If the tax cut issue is not resolved by Dec. 31, your tax bill will go UP... The Dems have dillydallied and delayed instead of doing this BEFORE the election, when they could have campaigned on it, they delayed.

If the Dems scuttle this -- in yet another of their "symbolic votes," the Republicans -- and the President -- can point to them for the blame. Republicans: "The Democrat party raised your taxes." The President: "I tried to avoid this, but Democrats rebuffed my efforts, so you get nothing."

Democrats need to do the math: you need 218 votes in the House, 60 in the Senate. The "bully pulpit" does vote. Putting "symbolic" pressure on the Republicans or trying to "shame them" into doing anything doesn't work. The President has put them in a position where they have to put up or shut up. By the way, he's put the Dems there, too. He's saying, "If you have the votes, deliver them." So far, progressives have not been able to deliver on the public option and a host of other initiatives.

It boggles the mind that 100% of the 98% of people you want to keep will get to keep their Bush era tax cuts. But you would throw it all away because 2% will also get them.

In a couple of days, as the Dems see what the President negotiated -- and they stop playing "CYA" and complaining about everything -- they'll come around. If they don't, it's their booties that will be exposed.

I'm glad the President has stopped trying appease the progressives and is doing what is right for the rest of us Democrats and the rest of the country as a whole.

What a load of rubbish. Compromise is only worthwhile when you get something in exchange. Obama gave away the public option for nothing, and he just did the same on tax cuts. Getting angry at his base for being disappointed in him for not holding to his principles just adds insult to injury. I voted for this guy, but as each day passes I'm less and less sure that I'll do it again.

BBQ Chicken Madness writes: "The left could be helping push their policy positions, and making the arguement about how/why they are better than what conservatives offer. If they did that, Pres. Obama's job in these negotiations would be much easier because he'd have more leverage and support. ... But instead they direct their ire at him, and him alone."

What a steaming pile of horse pucky.

1) You **seriously** think the left hasn't been pushing their policy positions? What, you never read? You don't read Krugman, Campaign for America's Future, New Deal 2.0, and on and on? You think some of these groups aren't also active in the halls of Congress? (They'd be in the White Hose too pushing their positions -- if only the POTUS would let them through the door.) I got news for you, ignoramus: Pushing their policy positions is pretty much all that a good chunk of the left HAS been doing for the last 2 years (and then some, of course). Of course that hasn't gotten much play on Fox, or for that matter ABC, CBS or CNN. The left has been doing what it can in a media environment that is entirely opposed to it. Which brings us to....

2) Gee, I wonder what it would be like if the POTUS **himself** pushed these policy positions every once in a while? Who's the one with the bully pulpit? When's the last time you saw him use it, other than to lob turdballs at the "professional left"? Maybe if he actually laid out the policy basis for the policies he **claims** to support, and did it forcefully and consistently, he might have an easier time getting them passed. That is, if he actually supports these policies, which I am coming to doubt more and more.

3) If the left hasn't been getting its message out there, how do you explain the results of the recent CBS poll that had public support for tax cuts for the top 2% of incomes at 26% approval? The public doesn't want those cuts extended. The message is out there. It's just that the POTUS prefers to roll over whenever the Republicans say "Boo."

4) The left directs its ire at far, far more than the POTUS. He is just upset that he's getting any flak from the left at all. He'd rather have us wave the pom poms for him all the time. Poor baby. You signed up for this job, and some of us are going to hold you accountable when you screw up. Which you have done a lot of in the last 2 years.

You can wave the pom-pons all you want, BBQ Chicken. Reality is gonna bite you on the backside regardless.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.